Rub3s
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
I'm studying OCR Alevel Law and I was wondering if anyone could answer my question on R v Lamb? I am currently revising case principles for unlawful act manslaughter and the principle I have been taught for R v Lamb (for must be an unlawful act) is: must be an unlawful act- no assault no unlawful act (D had now MR for assault.) I've interpreted this to mean that if there is no assault, there is no unlawful act meaning D cannot have the require actus reus. Is this correct? Or does this mean that assault does not count as an unlawful act? My classmate has confused me as she wrote that it meant that assault does not count as an unlawful act.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (60)
40.82%
Take autumn exams (53)
36.05%
Look for a job (3)
2.04%
Consider an apprenticeship (4)
2.72%
Take a year out (19)
12.93%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (8)
5.44%

Watched Threads

View All